Trouble logging in?If you can't remember your password or are having trouble logging in, you will have to reset your password. If you have trouble resetting your password (for example, if you lost access to the original email address), please do not start posting with a new account, as this is against the forum rules. If you create a temporary account, please contact us right away via Forum Support, and send us any information you can about your original account, such as the account name and any email address that may have been associated with it.

Pentagon’s Project ‘Avatar’: Same as the Movie, but With Robots Instead of Aliens

"Soldiers practically inhabiting the mechanical bodies of androids, who will take the
humans’ place on the battlefield. Or sophisticated tech that spots a powerful laser
ray, then stops it from obliterating its target.

If you’ve got Danger Room’s taste in movies, you’ve probably seen both ideas on
the big screen. Now Darpa, the Pentagon’s far-out research arm, wants to bring ‘em
into the real world.

In the agency’s $2.8 billion budget for 2013, unveiled on Monday, they’ve allotted
$7 million for a project titled “Avatar.” The project’s ultimate goal, not surprisingly,
sounds a lot like the plot of the same-named (but much more expensive) flick.

According the agency, “the Avatar program will develop interfaces and algorithms to
enable a soldier to effectively partner with a semi-autonomous bi-pedal machine
and allow it to act as the soldier’s surrogate.”"

When three puppygirls named after pastries are on top of each other, it is called Eclair a'la menthe et Biscotti aux fraises avec beaucoup de Ricotta sur le dessus.
Most of all, you have to be disciplined and you have to save, even if you hate our current financial system. Because if you don't save, then you're guaranteed to end up with nothing.

Its not about being the first, its about being the youngest. The article said that he was directly inspired by David Hahn through the book Radioactive Boy Scout.

The most important difference between the two of them is that he was given all the right support while Hahn didn't.

Its very important to let children learn what they want to, support them the right way. Michio Kaku said that all children are born scientists, everyone of us were born curious and seek knowledge. But the education system(in the USA) is killing all the curiosity of the children, memorising things and forcing upon students with stress and exams is not the way to truly educate people.

Michio Kaku said the worst moment of his life was when his own daughter asked him why would anyone ever want to be a scientist, after her geography paper. The exam required geography students to memorise all sorts of rocks and minerals flatly, and completely missed the point of actual geography, to study the tectonic plate movements and formations of rock. Question and finding answers is science, but not memorising things and writing down in exams.

Education systems need to cater more to what the children is interested instead of forcing them down paths incorrectly. Lots of child prodigies out there, be it science, maths or arts were successful because they had great support for their interests.

Its not about being the first, its about being the youngest. The article said that he was directly inspired by David Hahn through the book Radioactive Boy Scout.

The most important difference between the two of them is that he was given all the right support while Hahn didn't.

Its very important to let children learn what they want to, support them the right way. Michio Kaku said that all children are born scientists, everyone of us were born curious and seek knowledge. But the education system(in the USA) is killing all the curiosity of the children, memorising things and forcing upon students with stress and exams is not the way to truly educate people.

Michio Kaku said the worst moment of his life was when his own daughter asked him why would anyone ever want to be a scientist, after her geography paper. The exam required geography students to memorise all sorts of rocks and minerals flatly, and completely missed the point of actual geography, to study the tectonic plate movements and formations of rock. Question and finding answers is science, but not memorising things and writing down in exams.

Education systems need to cater more to what the children is interested instead of forcing them down paths incorrectly. Lots of child prodigies out there, be it science, maths or arts were successful because they had great support for their interests.

Our Ministers of Education disagrees with you. They believes that if we don't force knowledge into children, they would never become the child prodigies they would be because they would be too lazy to seek it.

__________________

When three puppygirls named after pastries are on top of each other, it is called Eclair a'la menthe et Biscotti aux fraises avec beaucoup de Ricotta sur le dessus.
Most of all, you have to be disciplined and you have to save, even if you hate our current financial system. Because if you don't save, then you're guaranteed to end up with nothing.

Our Ministers of Education disagrees with you. They believes that if we don't force knowledge into children, they would never become the child prodigies they would be because they would be too lazy to seek it.

Considering that everyone is different, that's bound to be true for some children. Perhaps it even applies to most children - who knows? The trouble is that inspiration is a hard thing to come by and to foster. On one hand, it's very easy to lose inspiration if you feel that what you're doing is relatively mindless memorization drivel; on the other hand, once you've had that basic knowledge forced into you, perhaps you can appreciate the higher-level materials more. Nobody enjoys practicing the piano day after day, repeating the same basic exercises and songs, but once you've gained a certain level of mastery, the fun begins.

I've seen a number of stories about this ("child prodigy does X" or "child prodigy discovers X in research lab"), and having worked with a number of high schoolers doing things like internship projects in a lab, I tend to be a bit skeptical. It's not that the students aren't intelligent, but their base knowledge isn't built up enough to really engage in the research. Their teachers write back to us with glowing praise after seeing a research presentation from them and after reading their reports (and no doubt they're thought of as geniuses), when we were the ones supplying the data, preparing the figures, and occasionally going so far as to write certain things out for them. The students, meanwhile, were either messing around on their phones/computers, or following us around with a somewhat bored expression. I'd generally try to ask them questions about the various steps that we were going through, to at least keep them thinking and engaged...

I don't know whether that's the case with this guy. The world seems to desperately cling to the idea of child prodigies, hoping that one genius will come around to save us all and elevate society. Regardless, the benefit of these articles is that hopefully younger children would read it and be inspired. If it makes even a few kids think to themselves that they can engage in science here and now (which they can), and that they don't have to wait until they're in their late 20's to finish school and really get into it, then it's very beneficial.

I don't know whether that's the case with this guy. The world seems to desperately cling to the idea of child prodigies, hoping that one genius will come around to save us all and elevate society. Regardless, the benefit of these articles is that hopefully younger children would read it and be inspired. If it makes even a few kids think to themselves that they can engage in science here and now (which they can), and that they don't have to wait until they're in their late 20's to finish school and really get into it, then it's very beneficial.

"Children are the future."
Is a pretty common mantra, so its not surprising that even the smallest of things (not calling this small) would get catchy headlines, hyperboles, and be given a life of its own by media and excited people. (Personally, I don't think it matters how old you are and that the spark of curiosity can come at all different times for people, and while age may to some be a crippling limitation for others it carries a rich background of experience. Unfortunately, the media and/or people will rarely pay attention to or arrest that 30 odd year old man who follows his curiosity towards much the same thing...)

I don't know how much an article will do to motivate a kid, and from personal experience I think it falls more on the people you meet and what they tell/show you from their own experience. Words tend to carry more force when presented with emotion than when typed up in a day and age when kids barely have the attention span to read a post as long as this one.

"Google intentionally circumvented the default privacy settings of Apple’s Safari
browser, using a backdoor to set cookies on browsers set to reject them, in the
latest privacy debacle for the search and advertising giant."

Considering that everyone is different, that's bound to be true for some children. Perhaps it even applies to most children - who knows? The trouble is that inspiration is a hard thing to come by and to foster. On one hand, it's very easy to lose inspiration if you feel that what you're doing is relatively mindless memorization drivel; on the other hand, once you've had that basic knowledge forced into you, perhaps you can appreciate the higher-level materials more. Nobody enjoys practicing the piano day after day, repeating the same basic exercises and songs, but once you've gained a certain level of mastery, the fun begins.

I've seen a number of stories about this ("child prodigy does X" or "child prodigy discovers X in research lab"), and having worked with a number of high schoolers doing things like internship projects in a lab, I tend to be a bit skeptical. It's not that the students aren't intelligent, but their base knowledge isn't built up enough to really engage in the research. Their teachers write back to us with glowing praise after seeing a research presentation from them and after reading their reports (and no doubt they're thought of as geniuses), when we were the ones supplying the data, preparing the figures, and occasionally going so far as to write certain things out for them. The students, meanwhile, were either messing around on their phones/computers, or following us around with a somewhat bored expression. I'd generally try to ask them questions about the various steps that we were going through, to at least keep them thinking and engaged...

I don't know whether that's the case with this guy. The world seems to desperately cling to the idea of child prodigies, hoping that one genius will come around to save us all and elevate society. Regardless, the benefit of these articles is that hopefully younger children would read it and be inspired. If it makes even a few kids think to themselves that they can engage in science here and now (which they can), and that they don't have to wait until they're in their late 20's to finish school and really get into it, then it's very beneficial.

I hate to agree with you on that - however I see that the cause of it is that we are constantly bombarded by articles and information everyday that we start not to be bothered with them.

Maybe gassing dyslexic or reading-handicapped children who are diagnosed at birth would allow the more comprehension-capable to be inspired, rather than going through the time and money consuming process of " academic meritocracy" to "socially darwinise" for prodigies. *sarcastic*

__________________

When three puppygirls named after pastries are on top of each other, it is called Eclair a'la menthe et Biscotti aux fraises avec beaucoup de Ricotta sur le dessus.
Most of all, you have to be disciplined and you have to save, even if you hate our current financial system. Because if you don't save, then you're guaranteed to end up with nothing.

Heresy! The Earth isn't flat or round! It is egg-shaped! If you sail towards the moon you take longer to reach the opposite side of the Eart - *gets egged*

__________________

When three puppygirls named after pastries are on top of each other, it is called Eclair a'la menthe et Biscotti aux fraises avec beaucoup de Ricotta sur le dessus.
Most of all, you have to be disciplined and you have to save, even if you hate our current financial system. Because if you don't save, then you're guaranteed to end up with nothing.

Dr Steele, who is also a molecular biologist, said he was also concerned that unhealthily high levels of antibiotics and antifungal chemicals would be needed to stop the synthetic meat from rotting.

Literally speaking, either you die young, or you die looking young.

__________________

When three puppygirls named after pastries are on top of each other, it is called Eclair a'la menthe et Biscotti aux fraises avec beaucoup de Ricotta sur le dessus.
Most of all, you have to be disciplined and you have to save, even if you hate our current financial system. Because if you don't save, then you're guaranteed to end up with nothing.

I know this is more science related, instead of technology, but I think it's worth posting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by msnbc

Thirty thousand years after their burial on the Siberian tundra, immature fruits have been cultivated into small, weedy plants — the oldest successful regeneration of a living plant from ancient tissue.

The plants, Silene stenophylla, grew and produced lacy white flowers. When fertilized, the ancient plants fruited and produced viable seeds of their own.

"This is very exciting," said Jane Shen-Miller, a University of California, Los Angeles biologist who was not involved in the study. "These tissues are viable after, say, 30,000 years. That is very, very interesting."